PER CURIAM: Jeffrey Bailey appeals his probation revocation, arguing the trial
court erred in revoking his probation without a sufficient evidentiary basis and
a finding of willfulness. We
affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. White,
218 S.C. 130, 134-35, 61 S.E.2d 754, 756 (1950) (stating the decision to revoke
probation is addressed to the discretion of the trial court); State
v. Hamilton, 333 S.C. 642, 647, 511
S.E.2d 94, 96 (Ct. App. 1999) (holding an appellate court's authority to review
a probation revocation is confined to correcting errors of law unless the lack
of legal or evidentiary basis indicates the circuit judge's decision was
arbitrary and capricious); Id. at 649, 511 S.E.2d at 97 ("[I]n those cases involving the failure to pay
fines or restitution, the circuit judge must, in addition to finding sufficient
factual evidence of the violation, make an additional finding of
willfulness.").

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, THOMAS, and
KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to
Rule 215, SCACR.